Dataset Information

Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys trial.

ABSTRACT: The purpose was to test whether physicians can validly and reproducibly diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). Twelve physicians assessed 24 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) on consecutive days (576 examinations) with physical features and voice disguised. Results were compared to gold standard 75% group diagnosis (dx) and a nerve conduction score (Sigma5 NC nds). Masking of patients was achieved. Reproducibility measured by the kappa coefficient and compared to Sigma5 NC nd varied considerably among physicians: median and ranges: signs 0.8 (0.32-1.0); symptoms 0.79 (0.36-1.0), and diagnoses 0.47 (0.33-0.84), both low and high scores indicating poor performance. There was substantial agreement between 75% group dx and confirmed NC abnormality (abn). As compared to Sigma5 NC, individual physicians' clinical dx was excessively variable and frequently inaccurate. Study physician dx from signs and symptoms were excessively variable, often overestimating DSPN. Specific approaches to improving clinical proficiency should be tested.

SUBMITTER: Dyck PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2956592 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys trial.

Dyck Peter J PJ Overland Carol J CJ Low Phillip A PA Litchy William J WJ Davies Jenny L JL Dyck P James B PJ O'Brien Peter C PC Albers James W JW Andersen Henning H Bolton Charles F CF England John D JD Klein Christopher J CJ Llewelyn J Gareth JG Mauermann Michelle L ML Russell James W JW Singer Wolfgang W Smith A Gordon AG Tesfaye Solomon S Vella Adrian A

Muscle & nerve 20100801 2

The purpose was to test whether physicians can validly and reproducibly diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). Twelve physicians assessed 24 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) on consecutive days (576 examinations) with physical features and voice disguised. Results were compared to gold standard 75% group diagnosis (dx) and a nerve conduction score (Sigma5 NC nds). Masking of patients was achieved. Reproducibility measured by the kappa coefficient and compared to Sigma5 NC nd v ...[more]

PMID: 20658599

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIn vivo Corneal Confocal Microscopy (IVCCM) is a validated, non-invasive test for diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) detection, but its utility is limited by the image analysis time and expertise required. We aimed to determine the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of a novel automated analysis program compared to manual analysis.MethodsIn a cross-sectional diagnostic study, 20 non-diabetes controls (mean age 41.4±17.3y, HbA1c 5.5±0.4%) and 26 participants with type 1 diabetes (42.8±16.9y, 8.0±1.9%) underwent two separate IVCCM examinations by one observer and a third by an independent observer. Along with nerve density and branch density, corneal nerve fibre length (CNFL) was obtained by manual analysis (CNFLMANUAL), a protocol in which images were manually selected for automated analysis (CNFLSEMI-AUTOMATED), and one in which selection and analysis were performed electronically (CNFLFULLY-AUTOMATED). Reproducibility of each protocol was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and, as a secondary objective, the method of Bland and Altman was used to explore agreement between protocols.ResultsMean CNFLManual was 16.7±4.0, 13.9±4.2 mm/mm2 for non-diabetes controls and diabetes participants, while CNFLSemi-Automated was 10.2±3.3, 8.6±3.0 mm/mm2 and CNFLFully-Automated was 12.5±2.8, 10.9 ± 2.9 mm/mm2. Inter-observer ICC and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were 0.73(0.56, 0.84), 0.75(0.59, 0.85), and 0.78(0.63, 0.87), respectively (p = NS for all comparisons). Intra-observer ICC and 95%CI were 0.72(0.55, 0.83), 0.74(0.57, 0.85), and 0.84(0.73, 0.91), respectively (p<0.05 for CNFLFully-Automated compared to others). The other IVCCM parameters had substantially lower ICC compared to those for CNFL. CNFLSemi-Automated and CNFLFully-Automated underestimated CNFLManual by mean and 95%CI of 35.1(-4.5, 67.5)% and 21.0(-21.6, 46.1)%, respectively.ConclusionsDespite an apparent measurement (underestimation) bias in comparison to the manual strategy of image analysis, fully-automated analysis preserves CNFL reproducibility. Future work must determine the diagnostic thresholds specific to the fully-automated measure of CNFL.

Dataset Information

Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys trial.

Publications

Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets